15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Moonbeam, you will note that I never equated science or religion with faith. I said that they both relied on it to an extent (and to varying extents). I then contrasted their beliefs in the supernatural creator. From this it does not follow that religion = science.
 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
"But the short version is this: Evolution is the process by which heritable and variable traits are selected based on relative fitness in environments that cannot sustain an infinite amount of individuals."

In that case, UThomas, I am indeed an evolutionist. Thank you for clarifying. You may disregard any and all of my points of argumentation, as they were attacking something that is not limited to this condensed version. On these premises I agree that evolution can and does happen all the time. I also happen to believe that God created the world by intelligent design and that all natural processes are the result of His creative work. But whatever. Oh, and I was providing an example with the snowman/snowstorm, not defining it. I thought I defined it better before, but you and moonbeam seemed to have trouble with the language I was using or something. So have a beer. I mean... a banana. Which brings me to Moonbeam... oh my!

"...Orivinally only simple organisms were found on plateaus, but later on it began to rain Hipopotami and monkeys. "

Why not cats and dogs? I'm a big fan of cats and dogs.

"...The rivers that hipopotami flow down never become the river of man, but the river monkeys flow down can lead to, well, you know, apes. AND you know ehat that means. Yup, have a banana."

Ooh--Ooh! Wah-Wah Tooki Tooki! I don't buy it, but it's fun to pretend.

"As to the metaphysics encapsulated under the rubric 'a merging of teacups into a giant banana', that requires some facility with the concept of a banana split. "

LOL! The Great Banana Split... you mean the one that causes all rivers east of it to flow east and all rivers west of it to flow west? Sweet!

..."Anyway is that God? I think it might be. Is it absolute. Close enough for government work. It will be thousands of years to change very much. And I think that what keeps life going is an inner joy at being alive. So maybe God doesn't change so much as we just enlarge him. Anyway something for the stew pot. "

What you're talking about is intuition, and I believe that to be a form of what Christians would refer to as "general revelation," the "feel-it-in-your-bones" kinda thing that might or might not exclusively lead one to a concept of God. Apparently it did for you. But you're looking at it as "God-in-itself," which I don't happen to agree with but can understand whence you derive the concept.
 

Degenerate

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2000
2,271
0
0
I also happen to believe that God created the world by intelligent design and that all natural processes are the result of His creative work.

Yep.. From that book you called a bible. While i got nothing agains the stuff it teaches on how to be a "good person", I certainly got questions when all you can come up with can be found in a 2000 yr old book. Some one, or some people wrote it and you belived it with all your life and base your existance on it... well all i can say is i am amazed.

"and god said let there be light... and light flooded the.." that is the sort of statement that you base all your arguments where life came from?
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
Originally posted by: Tanner
Evolutionist, Islamic, Buddhist, Christian...whatever.


Jesus died for you. He Loves You. So do I. :)

God Bless

Tanner



a vacuous statement as i've ever seen:p
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,468
6,693
126
Xirtam, I don't know what God-in-Itself means and I wouldn't think that intuition is exactly the term I would use. I would have to say that we may not even have a term for what I mean since we usually use words for things we know. The split I was refering to is the split within the self, the separation from the real self and the formation of the ego, the person we think we are. That person lacks the capacity to feel, is not aware of what he or she feels to a very large degree. The range of emotions experienced by the ego are mostly negative ones. It might be what the what psychologists refer to as repressed memories, but without the realization that this in not a condition of patients alone but of everybody including the therapist. Intuition might be a tiny peek, but the emotions that are possible when the need for unconsciousness, pain avoidance, is transcended by a conscious return to and re-remembrance of that pain, can, I believe, lead to a transformation of consciousness, a completely different kind of being, somebody like your 2000 year old man.

Man will keep finding the God Outside because being split causes a longing for when we were one. Whether speaking of the God Outside was the conscious choice of Knowers because they know that people feel so worthless that they would laugh if you said that God is connected with your unawakened self, or if they arrived at their God consciousness via paths that don't lend themselves to a conscious understanding of the exact core nature of this problem at least as I've stated it, is something I'm just not sure of. Naturally, there may be other explanations.
 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0
Are these "guys" your neighbors? You seem to know a lot about these "guys". Why don't you list the names and religious beliefs of these "guys". Include a brief anecdote explaining how you became aware of thier religious affiliations.

Rahvin,
These "guys" are discussed in many college level Biology classes. Grifith's Introduction to Genetic Analysis might be a good primer.

Moonbeam,
My point in how I handled your query, was to ask how you determine that you know something. This is called Epistemology. For most people, this is not very well defined. If something seems to make sense then one says it is true. Often, people become attached to the first thing they learn and defend it blindly against all comers - regardless of the legitimacy of the argument. Many church goers fall into this category, but so do many naturalist. In the case of Evolutionary Theory, there are so many people who felt a sense of liberation from dead religion when they finally "put off" the religion of their youth and embraced intellectual naturalism. Evolutionary theory became a foundational belief. Some considering it the final nail in the coffin of religion -- showing the absolute lack of need for God.

So when one of those mislead, blind, Bible-thumping, look-for-any-excuse-to-defend-stale-religion, religionist put forth their baseless arguments, whatever they have to say is immediately dismissed w/o consideration of the merit of the argument.

This mentality has created a confrontational attitude among many, and this reaches to the highest levels of both academia and church. Professors who actually consider the claims of ID theorist are blacklisted. It is a career ending decision. There is no academic freedom as far as this issue is concerned. Peer review in this area is actually peer censorship. Students at almost all levels are taught the FACT of evolutionary theory, rather than the evidence and the conclusions drawn (Inductively I might add).

This is especially true of Secondary education. There is an almost religious fervor in stamping out the misconceptions of Creationist and ID Theorist. To the end that this information is falsely presented as definitive. I remember being dismayed that in College I was learning that things I learned in High School were not nearly as certain as presented -- especially concerning Evolutionary Theory.

So now, when I hear ATOT'ers parroting the mantra they learned in school, I just want to shake some sense into them. There is evidence that should be studied. There are scenarios that could fit this evidence. There are observable processes. And there is a whole lot of induced conclusions being taught as absolute fact.

Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.

 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Are these "guys" your neighbors? You seem to know a lot about these "guys". Why don't you list the names and religious beliefs of these "guys". Include a brief anecdote explaining how you became aware of thier religious affiliations.

Rahvin,
These "guys" are discussed in many college level Biology classes. Grifith's Introduction to Genetic Analysis might be a good primer.

You didn't answer my question. You made an offhand comment about reading a biology text book which I have NO DOUBT has NO mention of the theistic beliefs of scientists involved in genetic analysis. I'm curious how you make the assertian on the religious beliefs of those researching something? Do you know them personally? Did you read their biography? How can you possibly make the assertian that YOU know their religious beliefs? Don't dodge my question again with some offhand unrelated comment. You made a statement that was phrased as if it was a fact and I want the evidence that in fact the "guys" you are referencing are in fact not theistic. I want their names, and where you found out they lack belief. Otherwise pastor I think you are bullsh!ting to the highest order.
 
Jan 18, 2001
14,465
1
0
Originally posted between: PastorDonand yamahaXS

Sorry, but I don't see any evolution theory as attacking any religion. Nor do I see it as a weapon that has been designed to be used against religion.

I did not say it was designed for that purpose. Remember, Dynamite was designed for mining operations and yet found quick application as a weapon.

However, you do consider it a weapon (at least you called Evolution Theory a weapon twice). My point is that I don't. What I do believe is that much of the bruhaha is the result of creationists "creating" an attack on their beliefs and responding in kind when in fact there is no attack.

Will churches suffer if they concede that science can perhaps provide "technical" explanation for origins of man?

Quite the opposite. The Bible teaches that nature can "declare" truth about God. On any subject on which the Bible is silent it is reasonable to turn to Science. My personal beliefs (Dispensationalist) would not suffer one bit if Evolutionary Theory was absolutely true. Jeremiah 4:23-27 is a description of the catastrophe that occurred to the Pre-Adamic Earth. Look there for what existed prior to Genesis 1:2.

Again, your thoughtful reply just missed my original point. Why the big controversy? Especially given your personal beliefs (Dispensationalist). Why do so many in the far right have issues with Evolution Theory? What does your community (i.e., fellow religious scholars) do when there is dissent in terms of the impact of evolution theory on theology.

I would respect and consider joining a church, and a pastor, that can distinguish between the two explanations WITHOUT resorting to the typical arguements.

The problem with using Science to determine theology is that scientific opinion is almost certainly going to change, whereas Scripture is not. There is the problem is confusing tradition with Scripture (as in Young Earth Creationist), but if we let Scripture speak where it speaks and let Scripture remain silent where it is silent, we can avoid much of the current confusion.

I never said science should determine theology. My point was that theology should be able to provide a frame of reference for finding spiritual meaning in science, even as we advance our knowledge and understanding of the physical universe. Evolution is one example, I sited Medicine as another. Even in Amish communities, where mechanized labor is shunned, the meaning of mechanistic work is intrepretted and given meaning through religious values. The validity of mechanical engineering isn't disputed, rather the value of utilizing mechanical means dimenished.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,468
6,693
126
PastorDon, your question as to how we know anything is an interesting one. I very much like the answer I see in the the Mulah Nasrudin and the halva story I've told, and the one about the two monks arguing the illusional nature of the universe both of which I'd hate to go through again, so what should I say. I also like the Socrates was the wisest man because he knew he didn't know one too. Yes, let's just for brevity's sake say that what we can say is that we don't know anything. The mind that is empty, the mind that is quiet, the mind that is free of attachment, maybe such a mind can make a jump from identification with the flow of mental images to the silent infinite canvas on which they desplay. I don't know. It's not a thing of words. What is the difference between the universe and a perfect mirror? What is at the end of thought? What is breath? What is love? Meister Eckart said, "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which he sees me." I think he might have KNOWN something.

As to people buying evolution whole hog without realizing it's inductive (is that the right one?), I am certainly guilty. To me it is a theory of elegance. It makes me go Ah ha. But I always had a profound love of science and a scientific kind of mind.
 

UThomas

Senior member
Apr 18, 2000
251
0
0
Professors who actually consider the claims of ID theorist are blacklisted. It is a career ending decision. There is no academic freedom as far as this issue is concerned. Peer review in this area is actually peer censorship. Students at almost all levels are taught the FACT of evolutionary theory

You have shown no evidence of this. You're just making a blanket statement without backing it up at all. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who would love to make a name tearing down a well established theory. They've been going after Einstein and general relativity, what makes evolutionary theory special? Nothing except that you think it is attacking your religion...

Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.

Parroting someone elses criticisms without either understanding the criticisim or the original theory is probably worse. yamahaxs is on the money, this is an attack created in the heads of creationists. I've already pointed to a study that shows that evolution is clearly NOT taught as an origin theory, contrary to your claims.

Do you find it interesting that you don't see this attack from other religions or even other countries? This is predominately an American Christian issue. Not many Catholics of course, since the Pope agreed with evolutionary theory decades ago...

Thomas
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
Takes bow :) But seriously Rahvin, which part or parts of his regurgitation weren't covered by "blah blah" or in previous posts on this topic?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,468
6,693
126
Not to mention that the Pope is infallible.

Moonbeam makes a note to himself to get that too.
 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
UThomas, it isn't *always* taught as origin theory, but some professors extrapolate to origin theory from the evolutionary model. This is more what PastorDon's alluding to, I think. I don't think he has a problem with microevolution either, which is pretty much what you're referring to by evolutionary theory.

Moonbeam, would you characterize your philosophy as a banana flavor of New Age, perhaps mixed with some Buddhist principles of dharma? ;)

..."but what we can say is that we don't know anything"... is not a valid place to start, in my mind. Just for the sake of the argument, it is self-defeating to say with certainty that we know nothing, for knowing that we know nothing is knowing something. So we *can* know, and much of this comes from your intuitive sense of "Ah hah"ness.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,553
1,710
126
Originally posted by: PastorDon
Why is it so important for creationists to disprove/discredit evolution?

1. Evolution is taught as FACT in the state run school system (which a majority of our children attend.)

Because right now it's the best answer. It has far, far, far more evidence than Creationism.


2. Evolution is used as a weapon against the validity of Scripture.


And the Scripture is used as a weapon against the validity of Evolution.



Often there are statements like "But, Evolution is fact - it has been proven?


That's ignorance there, unless something has happened since I last checked


or "If the Bible is wrong on that how can you trust it for anything".


The Bible was written by men and is therefore not infallable.


The conclusions of the naturalist are induced, not deduced.


As opposed to the critical thought that is demanded by the Bible, right? The Bible is a collection of stories written by men, after the fact. I would find it hard to believe that the Bible is pure fact. If it were absolute truth, wouldn't the stories of the bible be 100% applicable to today instead of being geared towards civiliation so long ago?

I think that it's time for God to give us an update.

Chris,
A Christian who believes in evolution.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,468
6,693
126
xirtam, how would I characterize my philosophy? I would say just off hand that the single most important early impact I experienced was running into the Zen teaching story about a man two tigers and the banana, or maybe it was a straberry that tops the banana split, I can't recall now. "A man was chased by a tiger and scrambled over the edge of a cliff to escape. He clung there holding on to his creation theor.. I mean a vine, his muscles aching and tiring from the strain. He looked down and below he could see another tiger. There growing beside him on the cliff face, I guess it had to have been a strawberry. He plucked it and it tasted so good.

But probably as important, I don't know, but earlier was hearing about Christ. Maybe thinking that he knew everything and that I could hide nothing made me unmercifully self analytical and honest.

Anyway, later I met a man unlike any other I have ever known. I attended a lecture, it must have been good, so I went to see him. He was a therapist. He said something probably almost exactly like this, "I think, no, I know I can help you." Hehe. Imagine that, a fat old man who knows he can help you. There's probably nothing really I can say about him that will mean a thing, convey a thing, so I'll just say he was like Sunshine.

How would I characterize my philosophy? The object of a well is water. In the tavern the tipsy pay no notice to the label on the bottle.

I don't know how to characterize what I was taught but the deepest truth, in my opinion, is this:

Everybody feels like he is the worst person in the world. He doesn't know it, he doesn't want to know it, and he doesn't want to know that he doesn't want to know. We got this way by being put down. We have all been through worce than a consentration camp. We have repressed these memories. We are unconscious of the fact that we feel them. Anything that threatens to awaken those memories is a profound evil, to be run from killed, avoided, anything but confronted. We died because we could not bear the consciousness of the pain. We died to save ourselves. To please them. We gave up, surrendered, became something false. Anything for love, for approval. But because we can no longer give ourselves our own approval, we seek it here and there. in relationships, in drugs, in religion, in materialism, anywhere but where it is, within us.

This has to do with our evolution, I think. It could only happen with the invention of language, the knowledge of good and evil we got in the garden of language, the ability to classify, to name, to attribute adjectives like bad in front of your name, and to demonstrate what being bad means, mister, is how we developed the false notion that we are evil. Well I'm not bad, no no no no not me. Try to make me feel bad and I''ll take your head off. I'll never be bad again. Well all the evil in the world is getting even for feeling bad, making sure that everybody else does too.

Well that fat old man said that he had gone all the way back, that he had felt it all, that he remembered how it all happened, and could see clearly and with 99.999% certainty that it was all a lie. There was nothing wrong with him. He was perfect and had always been, he just hadn't known. Then something within went inside out and he became a sun.

Of course these are all my words. When he felt like expressing the essense of 'his philosophy' he would just sit, nod his head up and down, and smile.
 

Spendthrift

Senior member
Oct 22, 2001
500
0
0
rhavin - this may be of interest


100 national/international scientists are still skeptical of darwinian theory linky

i personally have no idea about the religious back grounds of any of these scientists. and i would assume that some of them are infact christians. however, the discovery institute (who collected the signatures) said that not all of the scientists are of the same religion and some arent religious at all.

and let it be said here and now that the discovery institute is a seattle based think tank that supports ID theory discussion among other things
 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
Some people still don't think we landed on the moon.

Just thought I would throw that in there ;)
 

xirtam

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2001
4,693
0
0
I know *we* didn't land on the moon.

I sure haven't ever been there.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,971
287
126
<<Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.>>

<<Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.>>

<<Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.>>

Remember that. ;)
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: MadRat
<<Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.>>

<<Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.>>

<<Parroting what someone else taught you is not evidence of critical thought.>>

Remember that. ;)

BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!

FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0
As opposed to the critical thought that is demanded by the Bible, right? The Bible is a collection of stories written by men, after the fact. I would find it hard to believe that the Bible is pure fact. If it were absolute truth, wouldn't the stories of the bible be 100% applicable to today instead of being geared towards civiliation so long ago?

Apples and Oranges. The Christian Faith makes no claim to being based solely on an objective analysis of available evidence. My Christian Faith is more similar to my relationship with my Dad (and on similar foundations) than it is to any scientific theory.

The Bible is 100% applicable to today -- and tomorrow. There is a proper way to understand the Bible (Hermeneutics). The idea that the truths taught by Scripture are no longer valid is to put popular culture above God's revelation. This does not mean that you can take one verse and isolate it to try to prove me wrong. For example, the Jewish sacrificial system is no longer valid because it was replaced by another system.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,468
6,693
126
Hermeneutics? Hermeneutics? Hermeneutics? I wonder if that's anything like what I'd call peeling a banana